The scientific article that Emily Baumgaertner based her New York Times article on followed the general IMRD format. The introduction begins with introducing basic information about the Amoeba and he explains why they pose a problem to humans. The question that they are trying to answer is stated in the introduction, however it is not stated as a question instead being phrased as what they had already accomplished. The author also exclusively used past tense verbs using words like “tested”, “showed”  and “selected other studies that relate to his research and these studies were connected to his experiment. Even though section written in the past tense it is still a framing section because it focuses more on what we currently know and new piece of information we will get from this study.

The author of this scientific article then goes into the results/discussion part of this paper showing what he found in his experiment. The results/discussion section begins with the author explaining what the drug was actually doing to the amoeba and why it was able to be successful .The authors then goes into the results part of the lab introducing a variety of graphs that showed the effectiveness of the drug on the different types of Amoebas. The author then explained what these graphs meant and how they were related to each other. This article does differ from the IMRD guideline due to the fact that the author does no summarize the information in the graphs. This information is instead placed in the conclusion section of the article. This is clearly a describing section of the article because most of the information form this section is data that they found.

The conclusion section explains everything stated in the results part of the lab. The drugs diazepam and phenytoin were described as being extremely efficient in the inhibition of the brain eating amoeba. The real life application of these results is also discussed, stating that these drugs can be repurposed to become a cure for those infected by the brain eating amoeba. This section of the article is also brief making it easy for readers to get the important information of the study without having to read the whole article. The conclusion section is also written exclusively in past tense emphasizing the fact that the experiment had already been completed.

The methods/material of this lab is then introduced after the conclusion section. In this part of the article the author goes into step by step instruction about how this lab was completed. The steps were written in the past tense and these instructions were also very specific mentioning every specific detail. Unlike the rest of this article the language used in the methods part was very advanced. This part of the lab could not be read by everyone and requires extensive background knowledge in the subject. The author also states where this research took place and that they had no competing financial interest meaning they were not paid the to complete this lab.

The final part of this lab was the references section and it just presented the relevant information that was used for creation of this article.